1. February 4, 2009
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As Texas’ chief fiscal officer, I am committed to creating an environment that encourages the Texas
economy to grow and thrive. One of my responsibilities is to analyze factors affecting the state’s
economy. Access to reliable sources of abundant clean water plays a key role in determining the future
success of Texas’ economy and the health of our citizens.
Our office presents the Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’ Water Resources, which discusses the current
and future water resources in Texas, the practical and policy barriers faced by local and state water
planners and the possible funding mechanisms that could be tapped to develop our water resources.
The report also provides information on the current status of water management strategies in the 16
water planning regions in the state. State and regional decision makers will be able to use this report
as a tool to drive sound and prudent water policy in the state.
This report evaluates the progress Texas is making in securing water resources for the future. Texas’
water resources are diverse and ever changing, since they are based upon climatic and demographic
fluctuations. Drought is an ever-present concern in many parts of the state, leading to pressure on our
water infrastructure. Texas’ population is growing at nearly twice the national rate and it is estimated
that by 2060 there will be more than 46 million people living in Texas, and the state will need ample
water supplies to serve them. According to the Texas Water Development Board demand for water will
increase 27 percent by 2060 and if demand is not met it could cost businesses and workers in the state
approximately $9.1 billion per year by 2010 and $98.4 billion per year by 2060.
Our economy always has and always will rely on clean and abundant water supplies. In addition, state
and local leaders must recognize that how they define ownership of groundwater could have enormous
economic consequences for property owners statewide. Important financial decisions have been based
on the belief by landowners that the water under their land is in fact their “property.” A change in this
system could have very significant and adverse financial consequences for individuals as well as for the
economic vitality of the state. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’ Water Resources will help all Texas citizens
understand the importance of reliable water resources and what is being done now and in the future to
ensure those resources.
Our office stands ready to assist communities, businesses and lawmakers in their efforts to ensure our
state has the necessary water resources to continue our way of life. Together we can guarantee that Texas’
water resources remain plentiful for future generations.
Sincerely,
Susan Combs

3. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Water Supply and Demand in Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Demographics and Future Water Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Economic Consequences of Drought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Regional Water Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Regional Water Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Water Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Conjunctive Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Water Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Regional Water Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Panhandle Region (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Region B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Region C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
North East Texas Region (D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Far West Texas Region (E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Region F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Brazos Region (G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Region H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
East Texas Region (I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Plateau Region (J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Lower Colorado Region (K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
South Central Texas Region (L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Rio Grande Region (M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Coastal Bend Region (N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Llano Estacado Region (O) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Lavaca Region (P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
State Water Plan: Issues and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Reservoir Site Designation and Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Interbasin Transfers of Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Groundwater Regulation in Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Environmental Water Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Water Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Expedited Amendment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Indirect Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accountsii
Table of Contents
Financing Water Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Current Water Project Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Non-Self-Supporting GO Bond Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Self -Supporting Bond Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Federal Financial Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Proposed Revenue Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
State Sales Tax Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Water Conservation and Development Fee Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Water Rights Fee Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Water Connection Fee Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Sales Tax on Bottled Water Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 1
Introduction
Each of the several
one- or two-year
droughts in Texas
in the past decade
has cost agricultural
producers and
businesses impacted
by them between $1
billion and $4 billion
annually.
Water is not only essential to life, it is essential
to our way of life. Moreover, it has no substitute.
Without it, our bodies won’t function, food
crops won’t grow, livestock and wildlife won’t
thrive, electricity can’t be generated, and indus-
tries and communities can’t grow.
The lack of water is costly. Each of the several
one- or two-year droughts in Texas in the past
decade has cost agricultural producers and
businesses impacted by them between $1 bil-
lion and $4 billion annually.1
The infamous
eight-year drought in the 1950s, the drought of
record against which all droughts in Texas are
measured, is estimated to have cost the Texas
economy about $3.5 billion in 2008 dollars each
year from 1950 to 1957.2
In 2002, an agency of the United Nations (U.N.)
estimated that 5 billion people in the world
would face severe water shortages by 2025 if
demand continues at current rates. The result-
ing effects of these shortages could be crop
failure, increased likelihood of disease and, in
the extreme, threatened stability of affected
governments.3
While Texas may avoid some of
the most severe consequences anticipated by
the U.N., water shortages in Texas could still
threaten the economy and public health of the
Lone Star State.
Historically, more people across the world
have lived in rural areas than urban ones, and
they depend on more diffuse sources of water.
By 2020, however, urban dwellers worldwide
will outnumber those living in rural areas.4
As
Introduction
Blanco River near Luckenbach, Texas.

6. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts2
Introduction
Total statewide
demand for water
in Texas is projected
to grow 27 percent,
from nearly 17 million
acre-feet in 2000 to
21.6 million acre-feet
in 2060.
Without a significant, persistent climatologi-
cal change that brings increased moisture, this
growth is likely to mean that more people will
live with less water. Ensuring reliable water sup-
plies for the future, and balancing those supplies
appropriately between rural and urban areas,
and among agricultural, municipal, industrial
and electricity-generating users is the challenge
of our day.
To meet that challenge, Texas legislators estab-
lished a comprehensive water planning process
in 1997 which assesses current and future needs
in each of the state’s 16 Regional Water Planning
Groups (RWPGs), identifies potential solutions
people concentrate, so does their need for water,
making it increasingly difficult for communities
worldwide to provide sufficient amounts of water
for their residents.
Texans face the same challenges as the global
community. The state’s population is expected
to nearly double by 2060 and will also become
more urban.5
Total statewide demand for water
in Texas is projected to grow 27 percent, from
nearly 17 million acre-feet in 2000 to 21.6 mil-
lion acre-feet in 2060. From 2010 through 2060,
water supplies from existing sources are expect-
ed to decrease by 18 percent, from 17.9 million
acre-feet to 14.6 million acre-feet.6
Exhibit 1
Major Texas Aquifers
Sources: Texas Water Development Board.
Legend
Pecos Valley
Seymour
Gulf Coast
Carrizo - Wilcox (outcrop)
Carrizo - Wilcox (subcrop)
Hueco - Mesilla Bolson
Ogallala
Edwards - Trinity Plateau (outcrop)
Edwards - Trinity Plateau (subcrop)
Edwards BFZ (outcrop)
Edwards BFZ (subcrop)
(subcrop)
Trinity (outcrop)
Trinity

7. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 3
Introduction
The Texas Water
Development Board
estimates that
groundwater provides
59 percent of all
available fresh water in
the state, with surface
water providing the
nearly 40 percent,
and the remaining 1
percent coming from
both ground water and
surface water reuse
projects.
and estimates their cost, culminating in a State
Water Plan updated every five years.7
Liquid As-
sets: The State of Texas’ Water Resources evalu-
ates the progress that Texas has made toward
developing sustainable water supplies since
the issuance of the 2007 State Water Plan, with
particular emphasis on identifying policy and
funding barriers impeding that progress.
Water Supply and Demand in Texas
The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB),
the state agency responsible for providing “lead-
ership, planning, financial assistance, informa-
tion, and education for the conservation and
responsible development of water for Texas,” es-
timates that groundwater provides 59 percent of
all available fresh water in the state, with surface
water providing the nearly 40 percent, and the
remaining 1 percent coming from both ground
water and surface water reuse projects. Unfortu-
nately, both water sources are decreasing — the
former due to pumping in excess of recharge,
and the latter primarily because of sediment ac-
cumulation in reservoirs.8
Exhibits 1 and 2 show
the major aquifers and river basins in Texas.
Exhibit 2
Major River Basins of Texas
Source: Texas Water Development Board.

8. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts4
Introduction
Exhibit 3
Estimated Per Capita Water Use, 2000-2060
40 Largest Texas Cities Ranked by Gallons Used Per Day Per Person in 2060
City 2000 2020 (est.) 2040 (est.) 2060 (est.)
Richardson 282 278 274 272
Dallas 262 262 257 256
Plano 256 253 250 249
Tyler 261 255 249 248
Midland 262 254 248 247
McKinney 220 244 242 242
Irving 220 223 218 217
Brownsville 229 221 217 216
College Station 225 217 213 212
Sugar Land 221 214 211 211
Fort Worth 215 207 203 202
Amarillo 256 201 201 201
Beaumont 216 209 203 201
Lubbock 181 202 196 195
Odessa 208 202 195 194
McAllen 205 197 193 192
Round Rock 201 194 191 191
Laredo 200 192 189 188
San Angelo 162 193 187 186
Waco 183 183 183 183
Carrollton 189 188 184 183
Denton 189 179 176 176
Arlington 165 179 175 174
El Paso 184 176 171 170
Lewisville 167 173 171 170
Austin 175 173 171 169
Wichita Falls 188 172 170 168
Killeen 132 179 174 167
Corpus Christi 179 171 166 165
Garland 159 160 156 155
Abilene 304 161 155 154
Mesquite 160 157 153 152
Houston 159 152 147 146
Harlingen 156 149 144 143
Grand Prairie 153 145 142 141
Bryan 147 140 135 134
San Antonio 147 139 135 134
Baytown 147 140 134 133
Longview 127 120 115 115
Pasadena 117 110 105 104
Average 195.2 189.1 185 183.9
Note: Water use projections from 2020 through 2060 rely on per capita use in 2000 as a baseline. According to TWDB, 2000 was a hot and dry
year when much of the state was experiencing a drought. Consequently, year 2000 water use tended to be relatively high across the state.
Source: Texas Water Development Board.

9. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 5
Introduction
The Texas population
will more than double
between 2000 and
2060, from 21 million
to 46 million people.
Based on current conditions, TWDB models
suggest existing groundwater supplies provide
8.5 million acre-feet. As the state’s major aqui-
fers are used increasingly for irrigation, mu-
nicipal and industrial use, TWDB projects a 32
percent decline in supply from 8.5 to 5.8 million
acre-feet by 2060.9
As of 2010, Texas is projected to have approxi-
mately 13.3 million acre-feet of total surface
water available during times of drought, al-
though some 20 million acre-feet are permitted
for consumption annually. According to TWDB,
only 9 million acre-feet of this amount can be
considered existing supply due to legal and other
constraints. By 2060, in periods of drought
surface water sources are expected to decrease 7
percent, from around 9 million acre-feet to 8.4
million acre-feet.10
This decline in supply will be
the result of reservoir sedimentation, a process
in which eroded sediments accumulate in reser-
voirs, eventually making the reservoirs shal-
lower. In 2060, the total amount of surface water
is projected to decrease to approximately 13.1
million acre-feet in non-drought conditions.11
While water supplies decrease, demand is
expected to increase due largely to population
growth. Per capita use among the 40 largest
cities in Texas in 2000 averaged just over 195
gallons per day per person, while conservation
recommendations aim to reduce demand by
1 percent annually to reach a future statewide
average of 140 gallons per capita per day.12
How-
ever, TWDB’s projections based on the 40 largest
Texas cities suggest that conservation efforts will
be far short of that mark. It should also be noted
that basic projections of per capita water use do
not take into account water conservation strate-
gies, which are anticipated for most cities in 15
of the 16 regions (Exhibit 3).13
In addition to conservation, increased efficiency
in delivery of water, especially for agricultural
uses, is critical to the future of Texas.
Demographics and Future
Water Needs
According to projections from TWDB and the
Texas State Data Center, the Texas population
will more than double between 2000 and 2060,
Exhibit 4
Texas Population Growth by Water
Planning Region, 2000-2060 (Projected)
0
50
100
150
200
250%
Percentgrowthinpopulation
Water Planning Region
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Texas
52.0
9.8
149.1
72.3
116.6
25.1
105.4
124.7
46.6
79.5
139.7
110.4
209.5
63.7
21.5
3.3
118.5
Source: Texas Water Development Board.
F G
A
I
C
H
J
B
E
O
L
M
N
K
D
P

10. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts6
Introduction
If new management
and conservation
strategies are not
implemented, water
shortages would
leave 85 percent of
the Texas population
in 2060 with
insufficient supplies.
to decrease from 17.9 million acre-feet in 2010
to 14.6 million acre-feet in 2060, an 18 percent
drop. The overall existing water supplies consist
of the amount that can be produced with cur-
rent permits, current contracts and the existing
infrastructure during droughts.15
Texas does not have enough water now to fulfill
all of its estimated future needs. If new man-
agement and conservation strategies are not
implemented, water needs will increase from 3.7
million acre-feet in 2010 to 8.8 million acre-feet
in 2060 (Exhibit 6). These water shortages would
leave 85 percent of the Texas population in 2060
with insufficient supplies.
Insufficient water supplies can harm the Texas
economy in a number of ways. According to
TWDB, “without water, farmers cannot ir-
rigate, refineries cannot produce gasoline, and
paper mills cannot make paper.” Economically,
insufficient water supplies could cost Texans $9.1
billion in 2010 and $98.4 billion in 2060. State
from 21 million to 46 million people. This growth
will vary widely across the state. Exhibit 4 shows
population growth across the 16 water planning
regions. Eight regions, which include most of
the state’s metropolitan areas, are expected to at
least double in population during this period. The
population in Region M, which includes Browns-
ville-Harlingen, Laredo and McAllen, is expected
to triple during this period.
Demand for water will not increase as rapidly as
population growth, largely due to decreases in
irrigation. Demand growth for water will come
from the municipal sector (which is made up
primarily of household and commercial uses),
doubling from 4 million acre-feet to 8.3 million
acre-feet (Exhibit 5). Water use for irrigation
is expected to decline from 10.2 to 8.6 million
acre-feet during this period due to more efficient
irrigation systems, reduced groundwater sup-
plies and transfer of water rights from agricul-
ture to municipal uses, according to TWDB.14
Overall existing water supplies are projected
San Antonio and the Edwards Aquifer: Striking a Groundwater Balance
Dependent upon the abundant Edwards Aquifer for more than a century, the growing city of San Antonio
and neighboring cities and rural areas have made a concerted effort in recent years to lessen their use of
water from the Edwards.
The Edwards Aquifer provides water to many people throughout the Hill Country, not just San Antonio. The
area has experienced tremendous growth in recent years, and water use has been apportioned carefully.
After many legal proceedings, the Edwards Aquifer Authority, operating since 1996 as a successor to the
Edwards Underground Water District established in 1949, was created to regulate water withdrawals from
the aquifer, protect endangered species and preserve the aquifer for future generations.17
Adding to the management issues of the Edwards are concerns with hydrogeology. Even though the
aquifer recharges readily, it cannot recharge without rain, sometimes a rare commodity in Central Texas.
Continued pumping from the Edwards has exacerbated droughts in previous years. San Antonio city
leaders realized that the city’s long-term viability could not be assured with a water source that fluctuated
dramatically. As a result, the city, the San Antonio Water System and others have focused on conserva-
tion and are considering obtaining rights to more reliable surface waters from the Lower Colorado River
Authority and the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority.
San Antonio’s efforts to use water from outside its metropolitan area have had some interesting policy and
political consequences. In 1997, the “junior water rights provision” of Senate Bill 1 strongly limited future
efforts to export surface water from outside its basin of origin, a management tool known as interbasin
transfer, or IBT (see Section 3). At the same time, neighboring counties feared the city would pump and
export groundwater from their county, so several created groundwater conservation districts to restrict such
activity. Although the city continues to wean itself from the Edwards Aquifer, it faces several formidable
challenges in its pursuit of replacement water sources.

11. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 7
Introduction
Exhibit 5
Texas Projected Water Demand by Category, 2000-2060
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Sources: Texas Water Development Board.
Irrigation
Municipal
Manufacturing
Steam-electric
Livestock
Mining
Demand for Water (millions of acre-feet)
Exhibit 6
Texas ProjectedWater Needs inTimes of Drought, 2010-2060
Water needs (millions of acre-feet)
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
3.7
4.9
5.9
6.9
7.8
8.8
Sources: Texas Water Development Board.
0
2
4
6
8
10

12. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts8
Introduction
A report published
in 1959 cited an
estimated cumulative
agricultural loss in
Texas from 1950 to
1956 to be in excess of
$3 billion per year in
2008 dollars.
during the mid- 1950s hit Texas particularly
hard.25
This one was called “the worst drought
in recorded history” by the former Texas Water
Commission.26
Today this drought of record is
used as a model for the worst-case scenario in
most regional and state water plans.
Climatologists studying tree rings and other
indicators of past rainfall have discovered that a
Dust Bowl-scale drought is likely once or twice
a century, continuing a 400-year-old pattern.
In the past 800 years, two North American
droughts of 20 to 25 years in length occurred.27
So not only are droughts likely to be frequent in
the future, they could also persist long enough
to cause severe socioeconomic repercussions.
Should global climate change reduce rainfall
and increases surface water evaporation as many
experts fear, the impact could be even worse.
While water planners throughout the state pre-
pare for a future drought of record, history has
demonstrated repeatedly that many droughts
end, rather ironically, with the appearance of
hurricanes, tropical storms and other flood
events.28
So, while we plan for too little water, we
must also plan for too much.
Drought losses are felt first, most often and most
severely in the agricultural sector. The economic
impact of the 1950s drought can be drawn indi-
rectly by studying meteorological or agricultural
production data of the time. A report by the Texas
Board of Water Engineers, published in 1959,
government could lose $466 million in tax rev-
enue in 2010 and up to $5.4 billion by 2060 due
to decreased business activity as a direct result of
insufficient supply.16
New management and conservation strategies
identified by the regional planning groups in the
State Water Plan could add 9 million acre-feet of
water supply by 2060. However, even with these
new water supplies, while some regions will
have their projected demands met, other regions
in Texas will have unmet needs because cost-
effective strategies to increase supply could not
be identified.22
The Economic Consequences
of Drought
The American Meteorological Society defines
drought as “a period of abnormally dry weather
sufficiently prolonged for the lack of water to
cause serious hydrologic imbalance in the affect-
ed area.”23
Droughts can be meteorological (less
than normal precipitation), agricultural (soil
moisture insufficient to grow crops), hydrologi-
cal (below normal surface and subsurface water
supplies) and/or socioeconomic (when water
shortages begin to affect daily life).24
Policymakers look to the “drought of record” as
a yardstick for estimating water needs during
future droughts. The first drought of record was
the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, which covered 70
percent of the U.S. An even more severe drought
Georgia’s Drought Crisis
Georgia has been experiencing a severe drought that has caused significant harm to that state’s economy.
In testimony before a Congressional field hearing in March 2008, the General of the area U.S. Corps of
Engineers stated that lakes in Georgia, Alabama and Florida were for the first time experiencing “negative
inflows,” meaning that “there was more water leaving the system through evaporation than was…coming
into the system” through rainfall.18
Water management in Georgia is very different than in Texas because the management of certain lake
waters include laws that require water releases to protect endangered species downstream in Alabama
and Florida. Business interests affiliated with West Point Lake in northwest Georgia estimated that dimin-
ished economic activity resulting from the low water level at West Point Lake cost between $800 million
and $1.1 billion for 2006-07.19
Of the state’s 159 counties, 40 were in moderate to extreme drought as of
October 2008.20
The cities of Atlanta, Athens, Augusta, Columbus and Macon are engaged in significant
water conservation efforts.21

13. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 9
Introduction
Regional Water Planning Process
According to TWDB, the goal of the water plan-
ning process is to ensure “that Texas will have
enough water in the future to sustain our cities
and rural communities, our farms and ranches,
our businesses and industries, and the environ-
ment.”31
Based on the state’s growing population
and vulnerability to drought, water planning in
Texas takes on an important dimension.
In 1997, the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill
1, which directed TWDB to designate the areas
for which regional water plans should be devel-
oped — in essence, creating 16 regional water
planning groups and established a water planning
process that occurs in 5-year increments and is
based on a 50-year planning horizon. Under the
bill, water planning in Texas is a collaborative,
statewide initiative. Texas uses a “bottom-up” ap-
proach to water planning rooted in local, consen-
sus-based decision-making. Each regional water
planning group includes members representing
various stakeholders, including agriculture,
cited an estimated cumulative agricultural loss in
Texas from 1950 to 1956 to be in excess of $3 bil-
lion,29
the equivalent of more than $24 billion, or
almost $3.5 billion annually, in 2008 dollars.30
Exhibit 7 shows the effect that the drought of
the 1950s had on net cash farm income in Texas,
which excludes most governmental sources of
income for farmers. Drought swept across the
state starting in 1950. Within three years annual
farm income decreased below 1949 levels and
remained low until the drought lifted. This indi-
cates that this severe drought had a pronounced
negative impact on the agricultural sector of the
Texas economy.
Data from Texas A&M University’s Department
of Agricultural Economics indicate that recent,
less severe droughts have had significant econom-
ic effects on the state’s agricultural sector. Exhibit
8 shows the estimated losses suffered by produc-
ers during several one-year droughts in the past
12 years. Losses of $1 billion or more occurred in
five separate years between 1996 and 2008.
Exhibit 7
Texas Farm Gross Cash Income Index 1949-1963
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
196319621961196019591958195719561955195419531952195119501949
Note: Annual values are indexed to 1949 dollars.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and Comptroller of Public Accounts.
(Drought of Record)
1.0 = $1 in 1949

14. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts10
Introduction
Providing adequate
freshwater supplies
for the future is a
critical task that
Texas must confront
head-on.
efforts will have on local and statewide water
supplies. In addition, these entities also must
consider the impact their actions could have
on a landowner’s private property rights in the
water on or under their land, as well as any
potential economic impact.
The following sections will take a more in-depth
look at the challenges facing Texas regarding wa-
ter policy. Regional Water Planning of the report
reviews the challenges faced by each of the state’s
16 regional water planning groups, and provides
an update on the progress each group has made
in addressing its water needs.
State Water Plan: Issues and Funding looks at
several of the water policy issues that need to
be confronted to ensure that Texas has suffi-
cient water in the future. This includes a look at
various proposals to create a dedicated funding
mechanism for water projects and an examina-
tion of water infrastructure funding mecha-
nisms in other states.
industry, the environment, cities, water utilities,
power companies and other interests.32
Using data from the Texas State Data Center
and TWDB, each planning group evaluates
population, water demand and water supply
projections, along with potential strategies to
meet demands over a 50-year planning horizon.
After this process is complete, TWDB compiles
regional plans from each of the 16 areas into the
State Water Plan. These strategies and projects
are submitted to the Legislature, along with
policy recommendations needed to implement
the plan. After the plan is published, the plan-
ning process repeats. Exhibit 9 shows the water
planning regions in the state.
Conclusion
Providing adequate freshwater supplies for
the future is a critical task that Texas must
confront head-on. The needs are great and
varied, and meeting them will be both daunt-
ing and expensive. State and local water
management entities must evaluate the need
for developing new water resources while at the
same time determine what effect conservation
Exhibit 8
Texas Agriculture Producer Losses Due to Drought, 1996-2008
(in millions)
1996 1998 2000 2006 2008
$2,093 $2,103
$1,096
$4,100
$1,360
Sources: Texas A&M University.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
$5000

15. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 11
Introduction
Endnotes
1
Blair Fannin, “2008 Texas Drought Losses Estimated
at $1.4 Billion,” AgNews: News and Public Affairs,
Texas A&M AgriLife, (September 8, 2008), p. 1, http://
agnews.tamu.edu/showstory.php?id=710. (Last visited
December 29, 2008.) ; Blair Fannin, “Texas Drought
Losses Estimated at $4.1 Billion,” AgNews: News
and Public Affairs, Texas A&M University System
Agriculture Program, (August 11, 2006), p. 1, http://
agnewsarchive.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/DRGHT/
Aug1106a.htm. (Last visited December 29, 2008.)
2
Robert L. Lowry, Jr., Bulletin 5914: A Study of
Droughts in Texas (Austin, Texas: Texas Board of
Water Engineers, December 1959), p. 1; and U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Inflation Calculator,”
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl. (Last visited
December 29, 2008.)
3
International Atomic Energy Agency, “World Water
Day 2002: Water for Development,” p.1, http://
waterday2002.iaea.org/English/PressReleaseE.html.
(Last visited December 29, 2008.) (Press release.)
4
UNESCO, 2003 International Year of Freshwater,
“Water for Our Future: What Are the Trends?” pp.
2-3, http://www.wateryear2003.org/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=3697&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION=201.html. (Last visited December 29,
2008.)
5
Texas Water Development Board, Water for Texas
2007 (Austin, Texas, January 2007), Volume II, pp.
120-121, http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/
reports/State_Water_Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/
CHAPTER%204_Final_112806.pdf. (Last visited
December 29, 2008.)
6
Texas Water Development Board, Water for
Texas 2007, Volume I, p. 2, http://www.twdb.
Exhibit 9
Water Planning Regions
Sources: Texas Water Development Board.
Region F
Brazos G
Panhandle (A)
East
Texas (I)
Region C
Region H
Plateau (J)
Region B
Far West
Texas (E)
Llano
Estacado (O)
South Central
Texas (L)
Rio
Grande
(M)
Coastal
Bend (N)
Lower
Colorado (K)
North
East
Texas (D)
Lavaca
(P)

16. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts12
Introduction
state.tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_
Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/vol%201_FINAL%20
113006.pdf. (Last visited December 29, 2008.)
7
Texas Water Development Board, Water for Texas
2007, Volume II, pp. 115-116, http://www.twdb.
state.tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_
Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/CHAPTER%203%20
final_102806.pdf. (Last visited December 29, 2008).
8
Texas Water Development Board, “About the Texas
Water Development Board,” p. 1, http://www.twdb.
state.tx.us/about/aboutTWDBmain.asp. (Last visited
December 29, 2008); and Texas Water Development
Board, Water for Texas 2007, Volume II, p. 138,
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/
State_Water_Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/
CHAPTER%206%20FINAL_112906.pdf. (Last visited
December 29, 2008); and Texas Water Development
Board, Water for Texas 2007, Volume II, pp. 176,
222-224, http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/
reports/State_Water_Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/
CHAPTER%207%20FINAL_112906.pdf. (Last visited
December 29, 2008.)
9
Texas Water Development Board, Water for Texas
2007, Volume II, p. 176.
10
Texas Water Development Board, Water for Texas
2007, Volume II, p. 138.
11
Texas Water Development Board, Water for
Texas 2007, Volume II, p. 172. http://www.twdb.
state.tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_
Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/CHAPTER%206%20
FINAL_112906.pdf. (Last visited December 29, 2008.)
12
Texas Water Conservation Implementation Task
Force, Report to the 79th Legislature, (Austin, Texas:
Texas Water Development Board, November 2004),
pp. 14, 32-33, http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/assistance/
conservation/TaskForceDocs/WCITF_Leg_Report.
pdf. (Last visited December 29, 2008.)
13
Texas Water Development Board, Water for
Texas 2007, Volume II, p. 128, http://www.twdb.
state.tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_
Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/CHAPTER%204_
Final_112806.pdf. (Last visited December 29, 2008.)
14
Texas Water Development Board, Water for Texas
2007, Volume II, pp. 120-122. http://www.twdb.
state.tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_
Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/CHAPTER%204_
Final_112806.pdf. (Last visited December 29, 2008.)
15
Texas Water Development Board, Water for
Texas 2007, Volume I, p. 4. http://www.twdb.
state.tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_
Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/vol%201_FINAL%20
113006.pdf. (Last visited December 29, 2008.)
16
Texas Water Development Board, Water for
Texas 2007, Volume II, p. 246. http://www.twdb.
state.tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_
Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/CHAPTER%20
9_112806.indd.pdf. (Last visited December 29, 2008.)
17
Edwards Aquifer Authority, “EAA Act/Mission and
Goals,” p. 1, http://www.edwardsaquifer.org/pages/
eaaact.htm. (Last visited December 29, 2008.)
18
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Small
Business, Full Committee Field Hearing on the Impact
of the 2006-2007 Drought on Georgia’s Economy
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, March 2008), p. 21, http://frwebgate.access.
gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_house_
hearings&docid=f:41331.pdf. (Last visited December
30, 2008.)
19
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Small
Business, Full Committee Field Hearing on the Impact
of the 2006-2007 Drought on Georgia’s Economy, p. 4.
20
David Emory Stooksbury, “Georgia’s Drought Gets
Worse in Dry September: Tropical Rain Relief Gone,”
Georgia Faces: News to Use About Georgia Family,
Agricultural, Consumer & Environmental Sciences
(October 1, 2008), pp. 1-2 , http://georgiafaces.caes.
uga.edu/storypage.cfm?storyid=3527. (Last visited
December 30, 2008.) ; and GeorgiaInfo, “Georgia
Counties Ranked by Area,” pp. 1-4, http://georgiainfo.
galileo.usg.edu/gacountiesbyarea.htm. (Last visited
December 30, 2008.)
21
David Emory Stooksbury, “Georgia’s Drought Gets
Worse in Dry September: Tropical Rain Relief Gone,”
p. 1.
22
Texas Water Development Board, Water for
Texas 2007, Volume I, pp. 5-7. http://www.twdb.
state.tx.us/publications/reports/State_Water_
Plan/2007/2007StateWaterPlan/vol%201_FINAL%20
113006.pdf. (Last visited December 30, 2008.)
23
American Meteorological Society, “Drought,”
in Glossary of Meteorology (Washington, D.C.,
2000), http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/
search?id=drought1. (Last visited December 30, 2008.)
24
National Weather Service Forecast Office, “What is
Meant by the Term Drought?” p. 1, http://www.wrh.
noaa.gov/fgz/science/drought.php?wfo=fgz. (Last
visited December 30, 2008.)
25
Sources vary in estimating the duration of the
drought of the 1950s. Some argue that the drought
began in 1949, not 1950, while others say it ended
in 1956, not 1957. Because droughts by their very
nature are transitory and do not affect every area of
the state equally, it is likely that all these dates are
accurate, depending upon locally available data. For
purposes of this report, the drought will be defined as
beginning in 1950 and ending in mid-1957 so that it
lasted a full seven years. All sources agree, however,
that the drought was most severe in 1956.
26
Texas Water Commission, Texas Drought: Its Recent
History (1931-1985) (Austin, Texas, September 1987),
p. 1.
27
Connie A. Woodhouse and David Rind, “A 2,000-Year
Record of Drought Variability in the Central United
States,” in History of Drought Variability in the Central
United States: Implications for the Future, United
States Global Change Research Program Seminar, 25

17. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 13
Introduction
January 1999, (Washington, D.C. 2003) p. 3, http://
www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/990120FO.html.
(Last visited December 30, 3008.)
28
Texas Water Commission, Texas Drought: Its Recent
History (1931-1985), p. 1.
29
Robert L. Lowry, Jr., Bulletin 5914: A Study of
Droughts in Texas, p. 1.
30
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Inflation Calculator.”
31
Texas Water Development Board, Water for Texas
2007, Volume I, p. 2.
32
Texas Water Development Board, Water for Texas
2007, Volume II, pp. 2-4.

18. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts14
Introduction

19. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 15
Regional Water Planning
Regional Water Planning
Aerial view of dam in Canyon Lake, Texas.
The Texas Water Development Board’s
(TWDB’s) 2007 State Water Plan identifies 330
water management strategies from around the
state that could add about 9 million acre-feet an-
nually to the Texas water supply by 2060. Some
of these strategies require significant upfront
capital costs while others require users to pay
fees or provide incentives for users to change
their usage.
TWDB estimates that these projects — which
involve new reservoirs, desalination plants and
conveyance/distribution infrastructure conser-
vation measures and increased transfers between
river basins — would cost the state $30.7 billion
in current dollars by 2060. To put that figure in
perspective, the total fiscal 2008 state budget,
including federal funds, was $85.7 billion.
TWDB also estimates that the cost of not imple-
menting these strategies, assuming widespread
drought conditions, would be about $9.1 billion
in current dollars in 2010 and $98.4 billion in
2060. According to TWDB, if Texas fails to
implement the State Water Plan, drought in
2060 could mean that up to 85 percent of Texans
would not have enough water to sustain their
current levels of use during a report of drought
of record conditions.1
The economic impacts listed above are esti-
mates based on a variety of assumptions made
by TWDB and should only be considered as an
approximation of what these costs could be. To
generate the estimates above, TWDB assumed a
drought of record occurring in every part of the
state simultaneously. While not without prece-
dent, this is an unlikely proposition. The analysis
The 2007 State Water
Plan identifies 330
individual water
management
strategies from
around the state that
could add about
9 million acre-feet
annually to the Texas
water supply by 2060.

20. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts16
Regional Water Planning
does not estimate the likelihood of a drought of
record occurring or discount costs based on the
likelihood of drought.
The analysis also assumes stability in water
usage patterns and does not consider the effect
that increasing costs for water during times of
shortage may have on water usage by commer-
cial, agricultural, residential and other users.
The model used by TWDB assumes that the
structure of the Texas economy will remain
constant over the next 50 years, and does not
predict migration of Texas citizens out of eco-
nomically inefficient industries.
Finally, the analysis assumes that economic
inputs such as labor move in “lockstep” with
changes in output. As acknowledged by TWDB,
however, there may be economic, contractual
and practical reasons why a business that was
negatively affected by drought likely would not
layoff its employees if the drought conditions
were expected to pass. Further, some employees
who are laid off likely would find jobs in other
sectors that were not harmed by drought, or
would find employment in different part of the
state. Thus, according to TWDB, “direct losses
for employment and secondary losses in sales
and employment should be considered an up-
per bound.”2
Water Management Strategies
Each of the more than 320 water management
strategies in the State Water Plan can be catego-
rized in one of six general areas: conjunctive use,
conservation, desalination, groundwater, surface
water and water reuse.
Conjunctive Use
Conjunctive use water management strategies
involve combining the use of groundwater and
surface water in a way that optimizes the ben-
efits of each. An example of conjunctive use is
when water providers use surface water as their
primary water supply and use groundwater only
to meet peak needs or to supplement supplies in
times of drought.
Conservation
Conservation generally involves the manage-
ment of existing water supplies to reduce de-
mand and increase efficiencies in use. The water
plan contains two key types of conservation:
municipal water conservation and irrigation
water conservation.
Municipal water conservation strategies attempt
to reduce water use in urban areas through a
variety of social or technological approaches.
Social approaches include changing water pric-
ing structures to encourage more efficient water
use and increasing awareness of the importance
of conservation through promotional and educa-
tional campaigns. Programs that explain water
bills, offer plant tours and school programs and
provide other educational and outreach activi-
ties have proven beneficial in increasing water
conservation. Technological approaches include
installing more efficient plumbing fixtures in
homes and businesses.
Specific municipal conservation strategies in
the 2007 State Water Plan include aggressive
water-wasting fixture replacement programs;
water-efficient landscaping codes; water loss and
leak detection programs; educational and public
awareness programs; rainwater harvesting; and
changes in water rate structures.
Irrigation water conservation involves increas-
ing the efficiency of water use in agricultural
operations. Approaches recommended in the
2007 water plan include:
• irrigation water use management, such as ir-
rigation scheduling, volumetric measurement
of water use, crop management (leaving suffi-
cient residue on the soil surface by eliminating
plowing to reduce wind and/or water erosion)
and on-farm irrigation water audits;
• land management systems, including furrow
dikes (small earthen dams), land leveling,
conversion from irrigated to dryland farming,
and brush control/management;
• on-farm delivery systems, such as lining of
farm ditches to catch rainfall and run off,

21. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 17
Regional Water Planning
In August 2007, Fort
Bliss and the City
of El Paso opened
the second largest
inland desalination
water plant in the
world. The Kay
Bailey Hutchison
Desalination Plant
produces 27.5
million gallons of
fresh water daily
using reverse
osmosis (RO).
thereby reducing water lost during transportation
or evaporation.
Desalination
Desalination is the process of converting salty
seawater or brackish (semi-saline) groundwater
into usable water.
Groundwater
Recommended water management strategies for
groundwater involve:
• drilling new wells and increasing pumping
from existing wells;
• temporarily overdrafting aquifers (that is
extracting more water than can be recharged),
during drought conditions to supplement
water supplies;
• expanding the capacity and number of water
treatment plants so that more groundwater
supplies can meet water quality standards; and
• supplementing water supplies in dry areas
with water from an area with a water surplus.
low-pressure sprinkler systems, drip/micro
irrigation systems; and
• water district delivery systems, including lin-
ing of district irrigation canals to reduce water
leakage and replacing irrigation district and
lateral canals with pipelines.
In addition to municipal and irrigation water
conservation, water consumption by manufac-
turing, mining and steam electrical generation
interests is a growing concern for the state. Some
regions have engaged in conservation efforts
in these areas, but such strategies tend to be
restricted to areas of the state with significant
concentrations of these industries.
Examples of conservation techniques used for
manufacturing, mining and steam electrical gen-
eration include using water that has a low mineral
content for cooling and stabilizing or minimiz-
ing variations in water levels to prevent the need
for large surges of water. For mining and steam
electrical generation, the primary conservation
technique is to develop more groundwater and
surface water supplies at or near the operation,
El Paso: New Water Sources
Nestled against the Rio Grande, the Franklin Mountains and the state of New Mexico in the Chihuahuan
Desert, the city of El Paso’s natural beauty has attracted settlers and tourists for centuries. But El Paso’s
location in the arid western part of the state creates a significant challenge — water supply.
El Paso receives an average of less than ten inches of rainfall annually, has no reservoirs and shares its
only surface water source — the Rio Grande — with both New Mexico and Mexico. As a result, the Rio
Grande is constrained by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and by an international treaty downstream.3
Just a few years ago, officials worried that El Paso would run out of water by 2020. However, aggressive
water conservation efforts coupled with the discovery of abundant, if brackish, groundwater in the
Hueco-Mesilla Bolson have provided the city with sufficient water supplies decades into the future.4
(“Bolson” means “basin”—the Hueco and Mesilla aquifers are separate aquifers that overlay each other
but have little interconnection.)5
In August 2007, Fort Bliss and the City of El Paso opened the second largest inland desalination water
plant in the world. The Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant produces 27.5 million gallons of fresh
water daily using reverse osmosis (RO). RO filters resemble thick rolls of wax paper through which
saline or semi-saline water is forced under high pressure, filtering out salt and other impurities. El Paso
Water Utilities estimates that about 83 percent of the brackish water put into the system is recovered as
potable water. The resulting concentrate is disposed of carefully in a disposal facility or underground
injection well.6

22. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts18
Regional Water Planning
Even with full
implementation of
all these strategies,
Region A expects a
shortfall in irrigation
water of more than
300,000 acre-feet in
2060.
Panhandle Region (A)
Region A, also known as the Panhandle region,
consists of 21 counties and includes the cities of
Amarillo and Pampa (Exhibit 10). The region is
bisected by the Canadian River and gets nine-
tenths of its water from the Ogallala Aquifer.
Region A’s ten water management strategies are
focused mainly on conserving existing ground-
water supplies used by irrigators, developing
additional wells and encouraging voluntary
transfers among users.
The region also receives small amounts of water
from municipal and manufacturing conserva-
tion, water reuse projects and the Palo Duro Res-
ervoir. As such, its water management strategies
fall into four general categories: conservation,
desalination, groundwater and surface water
needs (Exhibit 11). Even with full implementa-
tion of all these strategies, the region expects
a shortfall in irrigation water of more than
300,000 acre-feet in 2060. Region A estimates its
management strategies will cost $562.4 million
through 2060.7
Surface Water
Surface water management strategies generally
consist of building new reservoirs; moving water
from one area to another through pipelines or
natural waterways; purchasing additional water
through contracts with major water providers;
obtaining additional water rights; and reallocat-
ing water in existing reser­voirs.
Water Reuse
Water reuse is simply the use of reclaimed water
— wastewater that has been treated to remove
solids and certain impurities, and then put to a
beneficial use. Such water can be used in irriga-
tion, cooling and washing.
Regional Water Plans
Each local planning group evaluates potentially
feasible water management strategies based on
its projected needs, and identifies the projects
needed to meet future water needs. TWDB
compiles plans from each of the state’s 16 regions
into the State Water Plan and submits the plan to
the Legislature, along with policy recommenda-
tions needed to implement it. A detailed look at
the cost and status of each region’s plan follows.
Cities
Hall
Dallam
Hartley
GrayOldham
Potter
Moore
Donley
Carson
Randall
Roberts
Wheeler
Hemphill
OchiltreeSherman Hansford Lipscomb
Armstrong
Hutchin-
son
Canadian River
Red River
Major rivers
Region A
Seymour Aquifer
Ogallala Aquifer
Existing reservoirs
Dockum Aquifer*
*Minor aquifer (only shown where
there is no major aquifer)
Child-
ress
Collings-
worth
Blaine Aquifer (subsurface)*
Blaine Aquifer (outcrop)*
Exhibit 10
Panhandle Region (A)
Source: Texas Water Development Board.

23. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 19
Regional Water Planning
The Panhandle region
shares an overriding
challenge with
Region O… Most of
the water supply for
both regions comes
from the Ogallala
Aquifer. This aquifer
is vast but recharges
very slowly, and its
water is being used
at an unsustainable
rate.
dents $384 million in income and 5,320 full- and
part-time jobs by 2010, and nearly $1.9 billion in
income and more than 30,000 jobs by 2060. In
addition, state and local governments could lose
$24 million in annual tax revenue by 2010 and
some $127 million by 2060.10
Regional Challenges and Successes
The Panhandle region shares an overriding chal-
lenge with Region O, the Llano Estacado region,
which borders it to the south; most of the water
supply for both regions comes from the Ogallala
Aquifer. This aquifer is vast but recharges very
slowly, and its water is being used at an unsus-
tainable rate. Unfortunately, the Panhandle
region’s planning group has been unable to
identify water management strategies that can
fully address the region’s water needs.
Given its dependence on the Ogallala, following
the region’s goal of depleting no more than 1.25
percent of its water supplies annually is difficult.
This is illustrated by the fact that one of its water
management strategies is “temporary overdraft,”
a strategy to use more than the recommended
annual amount of 1.25 percent, to meet the
needs of counties with inadequate supplies.
These two opposing objectives illustrate the
challenges that Region A faces in attempting to
balance present and future water requirements.
Several counties already lack sufficient water
supplies to meet their irrigation needs.
The Region A planning group notes that its report
represented a “worst-case” scenario which as-
sumes that, absent the strategies recommended in
the water plan, the region would take no actions
Status of Major Water Projects and Strategies
Region A’s conservation strategies are having only
limited success. Its strategies include municipal
conservation measures such as public aware-
ness programs and water audits; manufacturing
conservation efforts like using water with lower
mineral content; and irrigation conservation ef-
forts such as irrigation scheduling. The regional
water planning group has set a long-term goal to
deplete no more than 1.25 percent of the Ogallala
Aquifer’s water supplies per year. However, the
planning group reports that this restricted access
to the Ogallala Aquifer has made it difficult for
the region to produce adequate water supplies in
the short-term, and thus conservation measures
are having a limited positive impact. Even so,
the planning group estimates that its conserva-
tion strategies could save the region an estimated
288,476 acre-feet per year.8
Well development plans represent the region’s
most costly strategy. Costs to drill new ground-
water wells in Roberts County alone are esti-
mated at $164.3 million. Such cost estimates,
combined with the region’s limited ground-
water supplies, have made the board’s drilling
strategy difficult to implement thus far. The
region has, however, received a commitment of
nearly $23 million from the Texas Water De-
velopment Board to help fund new well drill-
ing in Potter County. Even with this strategy,
the region faces challenges in maintaining an
adequate water supply.9
According to TWDB, any failure to fully imple-
ment Region A’s strategies could cost area resi-
Exhibit 11
Panhandle Region (A) Water Management Strategies
Description Capital Costs Water Gained in Acre-Feet Average Capital Cost per Acre-Feet
Conservation $144,969,383 288,476 $503
Groundwater 343,380,400 117,220 2,929
Surface Water 72,265,600 3,750 19,271
Water Reuse 1,829,300 2,700 678
Total $562,444,683 412,146 $1,365
Note: Capital cost figures do not include administrative, programmatic or other costs that may be required to implement water
management strategies.
Source: Texas Water Development Board.

24. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts20
Regional Water Planning
Region B’s 16 recommended water management
strategies include conservation, water reuse and
water quality improvements, as drought condi-
tions tend to produce high nitrate and chloride
concentrations in its water. Total capital costs for
all of Region B’s water management strategies
are estimated at just over $202.2 million.12
Al-
though the region’s water supplies will fall from
2010 to 2060, a projected decrease in demand
will allow the region to meet all its needs if its
recommended strategies are followed.
Region B’s strategies fall under four major cat-
egories: conservation, desalination, groundwater
and surface water (Exhibit 13).
Status of Water Project and Strategies
Region B’s planning group has recommended
four water conservation strategies, the largest
of which is a canal lining project that aims to
prevent water loss by improving the structural
integrity of irrigation canals. If fully imple-
mented, the canal lining project will save the
region an additional 15,700 acre-feet annually
by 2060. This project is long-term, as the region
plans to implement it by 2040. To meet more
immediate needs, however, Region B must find
to address shortages that might occur. Similarly,
the planning group observes that the shortage
estimates used in the report are fully cumulative.
For example, the planning group’s report assumes
that a shortage that is projected to begin in 2015
continues to exist through 2060. The planning
group also stated its estimates did not assume any
conversion to dryland farming. As the chairman
of the planning group said, “Some conversion to
dryland farming is already happening, and some
is returning to grass, too.”11
The Texas Panhandle has been part of the na-
tion’s breadbasket for many decades, thanks to
irrigation technology that converted dry grass-
lands to farmlands. How the region responds to
shrinking supplies of groundwater may be the
largest single factor in determining its future.
Region B
Region B is located in North Central Texas
and borders Oklahoma. The region consists
of 11 counties and contains a portion of three
major river basins. The area’s two major cities
are Wichita Falls and Vernon (Exhibit 12). Its
main industries include farming, ranching and
mineral production.
Clay
King
Cottle
Baylor
Archer
Wichita
Young
Cities
Red River
Major rivers
Region B
Trinity Aquifer (outcrop)
Seymour Aquifer
Existing reservoirs
Blaine Aquifer (subsurface)*
Blaine Aquifer (outcrop)*
Trinity Aquifer (subsurface)
*Minor aquifer (only shown where
there is no major aquifer)
Brazos River Trinity River
Wilbarger
Foard
Montague
Hardeman
Exhibit 12
Region B
Source: Texas Water Development Board.

25. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 21
Regional Water Planning
Region B’s most
costly and most vital
projects are those
that aim to improve
water quality. For
example, the region
plays a role in a
chloride control water
quality project that
was initiated in the
1970’s by the Army
Corps of Engineers,
the Red River
Authority and water
planners in Texas,
Oklahoma, Arkansas
and Louisiana.
costs. According to the planning group, the
standard should allow for significantly higher
nitrate content because water with higher nitrate
levels does not present a health hazard to the
region’s residents. Moreover, the nitrate standard
requires that local water management entities
conduct costly processing that is unreasonable
given their budgetary allowances.14
According to TWDB, any failure to implement
the region’s strategies could cost its residents $4
million in income and 50 to 60 full and part-
time jobs from 2010 through 2060. State and
local governments could lose $200,000 in annual
tax revenue by 2010 and $300,000 by 2060.15
Region C
Region C includes 15 counties and part of anoth-
er (Henderson). Four of these counties contain
most of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex (Ex-
hibit 14). Other cities in the region include Den-
ton, Garland, Corsicana and Waxahachie. The
Red River is the northern border of the region
(and the state). The Trinity River runs diagonally
across the middle of Region C, and almost the
entire region lies within the upper part of the
Trinity’s basin. The region also contains portions
of the Sabine and Sulphur river basins. The area’s
economy is based in large part on services, trade,
manufacturing and government.
Strategies and Estimated Costs
Region C’s planning group has recommended 59
strategies to meet and even exceed the projected
water demands through 2060. The strategies in-
clude four new major reservoirs, 18 water reuse
solutions to its water challenges and manage its
current supply more effectively.
Region B’s most costly and most vital projects
are those that aim to improve water quality. For
example, the region plays a role in a chloride
control water quality project that was initiated
in the 1970’s by the Army Corps of Engineers,
the Red River Authority and water planners in
Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana. The
collaborative project aims to desalinate water
in the Wichita Basin, which supplies water to
all four of the aforementioned states. Region
B’s portion of the chloride control project has
projected capital costs of $77.5 million. The
project, if successful, would provide an ad-
ditional 26,500 acre-feet of water annually by
2060. In the late 1990’s, however, Army Corps
of Engineers recommended that a non-federal
entity assume maintenance and operation of
the project. Since then, the region’s planning
board has had difficulty obtaining funding for
the project and has been forced to suspend it
due to a lack of federal appropriations.13
Regional Challenges and Successes
Water quality is by far Region B’s biggest chal-
lenge, due to high concentrations of nitrate and
chloride in Lake Kemp. The region is in des-
perate need of federal funding for its chloride
control project, which would help make the
lake’s water potable. The region’s planning group
also asserts that the EPA’s current nitrate drink-
ing water standard, which specifies a nitrate
concentration of no more than 10 milligrams
per liter, forces the region to bear unreasonable
Exhibit 13
Region B Water Management Strategies
Description Capital Costs Water Gained in Acre-Feet Average Capital Cost per Acre-Feet
Conservation $58,500,000 16,462 $3,554
Groundwater 5,094,500 1,550 3,287
Surface Water 89,077,000 51,875 1,717
Water Reuse 49,595,000 11,134 4,454
Total $202,266,500 81,021 $2,496
Note: Capital cost figures do not include administrative, programmatic or other costs that may be required to implement water
management strategies.
Source: Texas Water Development Board.

26. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts22
Regional Water Planning
The total estimated
capital cost of Region
C’s strategies is just
over $13.2 billion. This
amount represents
43 percent of the total
capital costs in the
State Water Plan. strategies address groundwater supplies, but
another involves using an aquifer to store water
for later recovery and use.16
Status of Major Water Projects
and Strategies
The Region C planning group identified 13 of
its recommended strategies as “major,” due to
their large projected yield of additional water
or because they are new reservoirs. In addition,
there are two strategies, facilities improvements
and construction and expansion of water treat-
ment plants, that, while not directly attributed
with new water supplies, have a combined
capital cost of more than $3.4 billion. TWDB
has committed partial funding for six of those
15 strategies, as well as five other of Region C’s
strategies recommended in the state water plan.
All 20 of these projects are surface water or
water reuse strategies and together account for
73 percent of Region C’s total projected capital
costs and 77 percent of its estimated additional
water supplies in 2060.
projects, three levels of municipal conservation
strategies, increased water supplies from various
existing sources and work on numerous water
utility facilities (Exhibit 15). The total estimated
capital cost for the plan’s strategies is just over
$13.2 billion. This amount represents 43 percent
of the total capital costs in the State Water Plan.
These projects would provide Region C with
an estimated 2.7 million additional acre-feet of
water, for a total of 22 percent more water than
the total projected demand in 2060.
The strategies include new connections to Lake
Fork and Lake Palestine and additional water
from Lake Texoma, blended with more water
from Lake Lavon. Several major Metroplex water
suppliers are pursuing an option to purchase
additional water from Oklahoma in the final
decade of the planning period. New reservoirs
recommended by the region’s planning group
include two within Region C, Ralph Hall and
Lower Bois d’Arc, and two outside the region,
Marvin Nichols and Lake Fastrill. Only four
Exhibit 14
Region C
Ellis
Navarro
Jack
Parker
Collin
Cooke
Rockwall
Grayson
Tarrant
Dallas
Kaufman
Denton
Freestone
Fannin
Trinity River
Trinity River
Red River
*Minor aquifer (only shown where
there is no major aquifer)
Cities
Major rivers
Region C
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer (subsurface)
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer (outcrop)
Existing reservoirs
Nacatoch Aquifer (outcrop)*
Trinity Aquifer (subsurface)
Trinity Aquifer (outcrop)
Nacatoch Aquifer (subsurface)*
Queen City Aquifer*
Woodbine Aquifer (outcrop)*
Woodbine Aquifer (subsurface)*
Wise
Henderson
Source: Texas Water Development Board.

27. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 23
Regional Water Planning
This project is in the design phase, with con-
struction expected to begin in mid 2009.19
Two recommended surface water strategies for
Region C involve obtaining water from distant
sources. The first, the Toledo Bend Project, is
a strategy to bring water from a reservoir on
the Texas-Louisiana border, while the second
involves purchasing water supplies from Okla-
homa. The Toledo Bend project is being investi-
gated and discussed by Region C water suppliers
and the Sabine River Authority; it is not sched-
uled to be developed until 2040 at the earliest.
The Oklahoma water strategy is not scheduled to
supply water until 2060 and currently is stymied
by a moratorium on water exports imposed by
the Oklahoma Legislature.20
Three more major surface water strategies involve
obtaining additional water supplies from exist-
ing reservoirs. One of these is a new connection
to Lake Fork Reservoir, most of which is already
completed, having also been a recommended
strategy in the region’s 2001 plan. The final
construction and testing of the pumping station
is underway. Another new connection, to Lake
Palestine, is being designed; the supplier has a
contract for the water and the project should be
completed by 2015.
The third strategy does not require a new con-
nection, but rather is a plan to obtain additional
water from Lake Texoma (which would have to
be blended with other water supplies due to its
high levels of dissolved salts and minerals). The
supplier has the necessary water rights permit
and is awaiting a contract with the U.S. Corps of
Surface Water Strategies
Sixteen of the region’s surface water strate-
gies are considered major projects and/or have
received some funding from TWDB. Four of
these are proposed new reservoirs. Two of these
already have partial funding committed to them
and are scheduled to be in service by 2020; Lake
Ralph Hall received $20.8 million in March 2008
and Lower Bois d’Arc Creek Reservoir received
$23.35 million for permitting and mitigation in
November 2008.17
The status of the two other new reservoirs is
more uncertain. Part of the site for Lake Fastrill
has been designated a national wildlife refuge by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and efforts
to overturn that decision have failed thus far.
Neighboring Region D actively opposes the pro-
posed Marvin Nichols reservoir on the Sulphur
River in its territory. The Legislature has created
a study commission to look into and make rec-
ommendations on the proposal and other water
supply alternatives.18
The two strategies involving water facilities and
treatment plants received funding for seven
different projects in 2007 and 2008. In addition,
two pipeline projects have received funds from
TWDB. The Collin-Grayson Municipal Alliance
Pipeline Project has been underway for several
years. It first obtained funding in March 2003
and then again in November 2006. The Terrell/
Lawrence Pipeline is a project to bring water
taken from Lake Tawakoni on the Sabine River
to Lake Lavon on the East Fork of the Trinity,
and received TWDB funding in November 2008.
Exhibit 15
Region C Water Management Strategies
Description Capital Costs Water Gained in Acre-Feet Average Capital Cost per Acre-Feet
Conservation $1,097,572 297,647 $4
Groundwater 449,530,624 12,639 35,567
Surface Water 9,800,286,546 1,627,213 6,023
Water Reuse 2,952,014,853 722,320 4,087
Total $13,202,929,595 2,659,819 $4,964
Note: Capital cost figures do not include administrative, programmatic or other costs that may be required to implement water
management strategies.
Source: Texas Water Development Board.

28. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts24
Regional Water Planning
The rapid growth of
the Metroplex cities
within Region C poses
the biggest challenge
to its water planners.
Developing sufficient
water supplies for
the region is difficult,
time-consuming and
very expensive, as
demonstrated by the
recommended water
strategies.
the Trinity River; the water will be diverted
from the Trinity (the permit for which has been
granted to TRWD), piped into constructed
wetlands and then to the Richland-Chambers
and Cedar Creek reservoirs. The transmission
system and wetlands for Richland-Chambers
are completed; the Cedar Creek portion and
the “third pipeline” are in a later stage of the
project, scheduled for 2018.24
The last major reuse strategy in Region C is
very similar to the Richland-Chambers project
described above. The East Fork Reuse Proj-
ect will divert water from return flows to the
East Fork of the Trinity River; this project was
added to Region C’s 2001 plan by amendment
in 2005. The water will be piped to another
constructed wetlands for treatment and then
transferred to Lake Lavon. East Fork is nearing
completion and expected to begin delivering
water by the end of 2008.25
According to TWDB, if the strategies listed
above are not implemented, residents of Region
C could face losses of slightly more than $3
billion in income and 27,760 full and part time
jobs by 2010, and nearly $58.8 billion in income
and more than 691,000 jobs by 2060. In addi-
tion, state and local governments could lose $128
million in annual tax revenue by 2010 and more
than $2.5 billion by 2060.26
Regional Challenges and Successes
The rapid growth of the Metroplex cities within
Region C poses the biggest challenge to its water
planners. Developing sufficient water supplies
for the region is difficult, time-consuming and
very expensive, as demonstrated by the recom-
mended water strategies.
Most of the strategies in the 2006 regional plan,
as well as its 2001 predecessor, are being imple-
mented to some extent. Some of the proposed
projects, however, pose significant problems,
particularly the proposed Lake Fastrill reservoir
site to be located in a designated national wild-
life refuge, and the Marvin Nichols reservoir
site in Region D, which has specifically recom-
mended that the site not be included in the state
water plan.
Engineers for storing the water in Lake Texoma.
The project is scheduled to begin supplying
water by 2020.21
The last of the major surface strategies also
involves obtaining more water from an exist-
ing supply, in this case by raising the water level
and thus increasing the capacity in the Wright
Patman Reservoir. The water supplier plans to
build the transmission system to get the water to
Dallas by 2035 and shows the additional supply
in the region’s plan by 2040.22
Water Reuse Strategies
Region C’s plan contains three major reuse strat-
egies, two of which received some funding from
TWDB in 2008. In addition, a general reuse
strategy, “conveyance with infrastructure,” was
partially funded in 2007 and 2008. The funding
was designated for delivering reuse water to Fort
Worth supply facilities.
Dallas Water Utility (DWU) has multiple proj-
ects included within its reuse strategy, with a
total capital cost of nearly $455 million. One of
these is an indirect reuse project that would take
water from a DWU wastewater treatment plant
and pump it into an artificially constructed wet-
land. After the water is further cleaned through
filtering by the wetland, it will then be pumped
into Lake Ray Hubbard. This project was in the
region’s 2001 plan and is scheduled for 2012;
TWDB provided $16.6 million for it in 2008.
The wetland construction is already completed.
Another DWU project that received $30 million
from TWDB is the Cedar Crest Pipeline. This
direct reuse project is in operation, delivering
effluent for irrigation purposes (mostly on golf
courses); the 2008 funding was for pipeline con-
struction to take the water to more golf courses,
parks and possibly industrial plants.23
The other reuse strategy that received par-
tial funding from TWDB in 2008 is Tarrant
Regional Water District’s (TRWD) “Third
Pipeline and Reuse” project. This project was
in an experimental stage starting in the 1990s,
demonstrating the use of constructed wetlands
for water treatment, and is now is progressing
towards completion of stage one of the project.
It involves indirect reuse of return flows into

29. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 25
Regional Water Planning
industries are agriculture, oil and natural gas
production, forestry and power generation.
To meet the region’s projected water demands
in 2060, the Region D planning group recom-
mended seven water management strategies that
would provide 108,742 acre-feet of additional
water supply by 2060. The projected total capital
cost for these projects would be approximately
$32.5 million. The region’s water management
strategies fall into two general areas, groundwa-
ter and surface water (Exhibit 17).28
Status of Major Water Projects
and Strategies
The most costly strategy in Region D’s plan
involves new groundwater wells, many of them
being drilled by Crooked Creek Water Supply
Company over the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer.
Some of these wells have already been com-
pleted. A project to drill two additional wells
in Wood County, for example, was completed
in 2008 at a cost of about $1.5 million. Other
projects are in progress and still others are in
the planning stages, with additional wells to be
drilled as needed.29
Other obstacles to Region C’s plan include state
restrictions on transfers of water between river
basins; difficulties in obtaining surface water
rights for smaller water suppliers that previously
relied on groundwater sources that are dimin-
ishing; and the high-costs of various anticipated
construction projects.
Even so, Region C has made significant progress
on several of its water management strategies.
Five water reuse projects have been permitted
and are projected to provide 540,000 acre-feet
of water annually to the region. In addition, six
new connections to existing supplies have been
completed, and a seventh is nearing completion.
These resources should bring 351,100 acre-feet of
new supplies to the region annually.”27
North East Texas Region (D)
Region D, also known as the North East Texas
region, comprises 19 counties as well as the
cities of Longview, Marshall, Greenville and
Texarkana (Exhibit 16). Large portions of the
Red, Cypress, Sulphur and Sabine river basins
and smaller portions of Trinity and Neches river
basins are located in the area. The region’s major
Exhibit 16
North East Texas Region (D)
Cities
Region D
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer (subsurface)
Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer (outcrop)
Existing reservoirs
Nacatoch Aquifer (outcrop)*
Trinity Aquifer (subsurface)
Nacatoch Aquifer (subsurface)*
Queen City Aquifer*
Woodbine Aquifer (outcrop)*
Woodbine Aquifer (subsurface)*
Major rivers
Blossom Aquifer (outcrop)*
Blossom Aquifer (subsurface)*
*Minor aquifer (only shown where there is no major aquifer)
Cass
Hunt
Smith
BowieLamar
Wood
Harrison
Red River
Hopkins
Van Zandt
Upshur Marion
Delta
Rains
Morris
Franklin
Camp
Titus
Sulphur River
Red River
Cypress River
Sabine River
Neches River
Gregg
Source: Texas Water Development Board.

30. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts26
Regional Water Planning
The most challenging
issue the region
faces, however,
is the potential
development of its
own surface water for
use by the much more
populous Region C.
Region D opposes
the development of
the Marvin Nichols
Reservoir as a water
management
strategy for Region C.
opposes the development of the Marvin Nichols
Reservoir as a water management strategy for
Region C.
According to the Region D water planning
group, Region C’s strategy to develop a reservoir
in Region D as a future water source does not
follow state law because it inadequately protects
the area’s water, agriculture and natural resourc-
es. In addition, Region D planners believe that
Region D’s concerns were overlooked by Region
C and TWDB alike through the inclusion of the
Marvin Nichols Reservoir water management
strategy in the State Water Plan.32
Far West Texas Region (E)
Region E, also known as the Far West region, is
located in West Texas adjacent to New Mexico
and Mexico. El Paso is located in the western
tip of the region, which includes seven coun-
ties situated within the Rio Grande River basin
(Exhibit 18). The region depends on a variety
of economic sectors, including agriculture,
agribusiness, manufacturing and tourism.
Ninety-six percent of the area’s residents live in
El Paso County, which has a population density
of 760 persons per square mile, compared to an
average density of 1.1 persons per square mile in
the other six counties.33
Strategies Used and Estimated Costs
Region E has developed 16 water management
strategies to meet its future needs. These are
expected to provide 166,097 acre-feet of water
annually by 2060 at a capital cost of $688.8 mil-
lion. The El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) will
implement most of these strategies.
Region D has five surface water strategies to
obtain new surface water contracts and extend
and increase existing contracts. Most of these
strategies move water from Toledo Bend
Reservoir to Lake Tawakoni or Lake Fork in
Hunt County for agricultural needs. Region
D will establish new surface water contracts
as needed starting in 2010 and continuing
through 2050. Some new contract procure-
ment projects are already under way; Bright-
star-Salem Utility District recently obtained
a surface water contract from Sabine River
Authority that will provide 9,000 acre-feet of
water for the city of Marshall.30
According to TWDB, failure to implement
these strategies could cost residents of Region
D $135 million in income and 1,060 full- and
part-time jobs by 2010 and more than $320 mil-
lion in income and nearly 2,600 jobs by 2060.
State and local governments could lose $23 mil-
lion in annual tax revenue by 2010 and some
$50 million by 2060.31
Regional Challenges and Successes
Region D has significant water quality and
distribution problems. Due to high levels of
naturally occurring iron and manganese ore
deposits, groundwater in parts of the region
must be treated to remove these elements. In
addition, because the region’s is primarily rural
in nature there is very little water distribution
infrastructure. Building pipelines could be very
costly to obtain available surface water.
The most challenging issue the region faces,
however, is the potential development of its
own surface water for use by the much more
populous Region C. As noted above, Region D
Exhibit17
North East Texas Region (D) Water Management Strategies
Description Capital Costs Water Gained in Acre-Feet Average Capital Cost per Acre-Feet
Groundwater $27,764,102 7,806 $3,557
Surface Water 4,815,605 100,936 48
Total $32,579,707 108,742 $300
Note: Capital cost figures do not include administrative, programmatic or other costs that may be required to implement water
management strategies.
Source: Texas Water Development Board.

31. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 27
Regional Water Planning
another $172.4 million in capital costs. These
four strategies alone will create an additional
98,109 acre-feet of water annually by 2060.
EPWU’s conservation program, with an an-
nual operating cost of $4 million, is expected
to provide an additional 23,437 acre-feet per
year by 2060 (Exhibit 19).34
The majority of the capital cost, $502.7
million, will be used for pumping and treat-
ing additional groundwater from the Bone
Spring-Victorio Peak Aquifer near Dell City.
Other EPWU projects, such as the importa-
tion of water, the direct reuse of wastewater
effluent, and the increased use of surface
water from the Rio Grande will account for
Exhibit 18
Far West Texas Region (E)
Source: Texas Water Development Board.
Exhibit 19
Far West Texas Region (E) Water Management Strategies
Description Capital Costs Water Gained in Acre-Feet Average Capital Cost per Acre-Feet
Conservation $0 23,437 $0
Desalination 502,743,000 50,000 10,055
Groundwater 36,779,000 26,191 1,404
Surface Water 103,494,000 20,000 5,175
Water Reuse 45,842,000 18,109 2,531
Total $688,858,000 137,737 $5,001
Note: Capital cost figures do not include administrative, programmatic or other costs that may be required to implement water
management strategies.
Source: Texas Water Development Board.

32. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts28
Regional Water Planning
Since 1993, El
Paso Water Utility
has operated an
aggressive water
conservation
program that
imposes restrictions
on residential
watering and
includes a rate
structure that
penalizes high
consumption.
Through such
conservation efforts,
El Paso’s daily water
use has decreased
from 200 gallons
per capita in 1990
to 151 in 2006. The
per capita goal for
the city is 140, which
would be the lowest
level of use among
Texas’ large cities.
goal for the city is 140, which would be the low-
est level of use among Texas’ large cities.42
EPWU’s Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination
Plant, completed in 2007, is the world’s second
largest inland desalination plant, producing
27.5 million gallons of fresh water per day from
brackish groundwater supplies. The facility
has increased El Paso’s water production by 25
percent, and also includes a learning center,
groundwater wells, transmission pipelines and
storage and pumping facilities.43
Region F
Region F is located in the Edwards Plateau
in West Texas. It consists of 32 counties and
includes the cities of Midland, Odessa and San
Angelo (Exhibit 20). The Pecos River is located
in the West of the region and the Colorado River
is situated in the Northeast. A large portion of
Region F lies in the upper portion of the Colo-
rado River basin and the Pecos area of the Rio
Grande basin. The region’s major industries are
health care and social assistance, manufacturing
and oil and gas.
Strategies Used and Estimated Cost
In its 2007 water plan, Region F recommended
15 water management strategies at a projected
total capital cost of $557 million. The new man-
agement strategies would provide 239,250 acre-
feet of additional water by 2060, slightly more
than will be needed (Exhibit 21).
Region F could not, however, identify economi-
cally feasible strategies to meet some of its irriga-
tion needs or any of its steam-electric needs. The
region’s unmet needs include 115,523 acre-feet a
year for irrigation and 24,306 acre-feet annually
for steam-electric power generation in 2060.44
Status of Major Water Projects and Strategies
Because 78 percent of the region’s water comes
from groundwater, most of the region’s projects
are focused on reusing, cleaning and enhancing
these resources.45
Region F has been a leader in weather modifica-
tion (seeding clouds with rain-inducing chemi-
cals) and brush management for many years.
Areas within the region have been seeding prom-
Status of Major Water Projects
and Strategies
The region’s largest project involves pumping ad-
ditional groundwater from Bone Spring-Victorio
Peak Aquifer. The brackish water of this aquifer
does not meet municipal water quality stan-
dards, so most of the $502.7 million in costs are
for treating and desalinating the water.35
In 2003, EPWU purchased 28,000 acres of land,
a tract called Diablo Farms, which overlays the
Capitan Reef Aquifer. EPWU intends to convert
Diablo Farms into a well field. This project will
provide an estimated 10,000 additional acre-feet
annually by 2060.36
The Lower Valley Water
District has received $10.2 million in state funds
from TWDB to replace a water main as part of
this project.37
Drilling for the Diablo Farms project is
scheduled to begin in 2040. Like the Bone
Spring-Victorio Peak project, this is a long-
term strategy to meet future water demand
driven by regional population growth. Because
water demand has not been as high as projected
in the 2006 regional water plan, the region is
likely to push back the scheduled start dates for
the Diablo Farms and the Bone Spring-Victorio
Peak Aquifer projects.38
According to TWDB, if the strategies listed
above are not implemented, Region E residents
could lose $160 million in income and 4,570 full-
and part-time jobs by 2010, rising to nearly $1.1
billion in income and more than 13,000 jobs by
2060. In addition, state and local governments
could lose $8 million in annual tax revenue by
2010 and about $105 million by 2060.39
Regional Challenges and Successes
Since 1993, EPWU has operated an aggressive
water conservation program that imposes re-
strictions on residential watering and includes a
rate structure that penalizes high consumption.
The utility also offers several rebate programs
for replacing appliances and bathroom fixtures
with low-consumption units and using native
landscaping to reduce the need for irrigation.40
Through such conservation efforts, El Paso’s
daily water use has decreased from 200 gallons
per capita in 1990 to 151 in 2006.41
The per capita

33. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources 29
Regional Water Planning
Region F has been
a leader in weather
modification
(seeding clouds
with rain-inducing
chemicals) and brush
management for
many years. Areas
within the region
have been seeding
promising cloud
formations since the
early 1970s.
more than the city could afford by itself. Eden is
working with TWDB to find funding.
Furthermore, San Angelo recently built a pipe-
line to its well field south of Melvin to supply it
with adequate water. The pipeline passes near
Eden and the city could link to it. Plans to do so
are still developing.48
According to TWDB, any failure to implement
Region F’s strategies could cost its residents
$475 million in income and 8,020 full- and
part-time jobs by 2010, and $962 million in
income and 15,600 jobs by 2060. In addition,
state and local governments could lose $35
ising cloud formations since the early 1970s.46
The North Concho River watershed was the site
of a state-funded brush management program in
the early 2000s to restore grassland and reduce
large areas of water-hogging juniper and mes-
quite trees, thus allowing rainfall to penetrate the
soil and flow into underground supplies.47
Both
technologies are included in the region’s plan to
enhance surface and groundwater supplies.
The Hickory Aquifer supplies the city of Eden
with sufficient fresh water, but the area’s low
number of wells has impeded the city’s ability
to access much of the aquifer’s supplies. Drilling
more wells could cost more than $1.5 million,
Exhibit 20
Region F
Pecos
Reeves
Crockett
Irion
Sutton
Upton
Kimble
Ward
Brown
Reagan
Coleman
Tom
Green
Mason
Crane
Concho
Schleicher
Sterling
Menard
McCulloch
Coke
Ector
Martin
Scurry
Runnels
Borden
Mitchell
Howard
Midland
WinklerLoving
Glasscock
Andrews
Colorado River
Pecos River
Cities
Major rivers
Region F
Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) Aquifer (outcrop)
Existing reservoirs
Capitan Reef Aquifer*
Pecos Valley Aquifer
Ogallala Aquifer
Trinity Aquifer (outcrop)
Trinity Aquifer (subsurface)
Dockum Aquifer (outcrop)*
Dockum Aquifer (subsurface)*
*Minor aquifer (only shown where there is no major aquifer)
Edwards-Trinity (High Plains) Aquifer*
Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer (outcrop)*
Ellenburger-San Saba Aquifer (subsurface)*
Hickory Aquifer (outcrop)*
Hickory Aquifer (subsurface)*
Lipan Aquifer*
Marble Falls Aquifer*
Rustler Aquifer (outcrop)*
Rustler Aquifer (subsurface)*
Igneous Aquifer*
Source: Texas Water Development Board.

34. Liquid Assets: The State of Texas’Water Resources Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts30
Regional Water Planning
include Abilene, Bryan, College Station, Killeen,
Round Rock, Temple and Waco. More than 90
percent of the region is located within the Brazos
River Basin, which is also its primary water
source. Industries with the largest economic
impact on the region are service, manufacturing
and retail trade.
The Brazos Planning Group has recommended
a va­riety of management strategies that could
provide more water than it needs to meet fu­ture
needs. In all, these strategies would provide
736,032 acre-feet of additional water annually by
2060. The projected total capital cost for provid-
ing this additional water is just over $1 billion.
To achieve the water goals set forth by its plan-
ning group, Region G will implement strate-
gies in the areas of conservation, groundwater,
surface water and water reuse (Exhibit 23).51
Status of Major Water Projects
and Strategies
Region G’s conservation strategies would pro-
vide 6 percent of all water associated with its
strategies. The region has recommended water
conservation for every municipal water user
group that had both a need and a gallons-per-
capita-per-day use greater than 140 gallons.52
The region will meet with local and municipal
groups to develop timelines and reuse systems
and closely monitor well and reservoir levels.53
Region G also has several groundwater strate-
gies including building additional wells, water
treatment facilities and voluntary redistribution.
million in annual tax revenue by 2010 and $82
million by 2060.49
Regional Challenges and Successes
Region F faces challenges in meeting drink-
ing water standards as well as with disposing
of waste from desalination and radionuclide
treatment, which is, respectively, the removal of
salts and naturally-occurring, low level radio-
active particles from groundwater. A few small,
rural communities in the region rely solely on
water sources that exceed U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on some
of these contaminants, but they cannot afford
expensive water treatment costs, nor do they
have clear guidance on how to dispose of the
residual waste. Some regional representatives
contend that the cost of treatment in order to
meet federal drinking water standards is not
justified by the health risks from the pres-
ence of radionuclide in the water. The region
therefore recommends that the TCEQ help
these communities receive exemptions from
EPA’s radionuclide regulations so that they
do not face either strict enforcement or costly
water treatment costs. Further, the region also
has recommended that TCEQ create rules for
disposing of radionuclide waste residuals so
that these communities can estimate treatment
costs more accurately.50
Brazos Region (G)
Region G, also known as the Brazos region,
stretches from Grimes County northwest to
Kent County and includes all or parts of 37
counties (Exhibit 22). Major cities in the region
Exhibit 21
Region F Water Management Strategies
Description Capital Costs Water Gained in Acre-Feet Average Capital Cost per Acre-Feet
Conservation $43,152,601 81,974 $526
Desalination 131,451,830 16,221 8,104
Groundwater 251,825,812 38,270 6,580
Surface Water 30,115,300 90,075 334
Water Reuse 100,889,000 12,710 7,938
Total $557,434,543 239,250 $2,330
Note: Capital cost figures do not include administrative, programmatic or other costs that may be required to implement water
management strategies.
Source: Texas Water Development Board.